CliffyB's brother Rips Wii, says it will ruin things for the "hardcore"

[Paul Campbell]

[QUOTE=feilong80][QUOTE=m0zart]

[QUOTE=Michael D]Not necessarily.  Wii Play sold tons of copies, despite its negative reviews.  And many of those bad licensed games sell well, too, even when they aren't fun. Yet, some truly great games like Psychonauts and Okami sold like dirt.[/QUOTE]

(a) Wii Play isn't a terrible game.  I rate it at about average.
(b) It came with a controller, making the aggregate cost of the game itself around $10.
(c) Psychonauts was a great game, but people either like it or they don't.  If the average buyer doesn't seem interested in it, it's probably because it was not fun for them.
(d) I plan to savor the inevitable backlash you will dish out as I write this:  I think Okami is about on par with Wii Play.
[/QUOTE]

LOL. I haven't played Okami, so I'l steer clear of that topic.
But getting back to CliffyB's bro, I sort of think this is a knee jerk reaction when a rival entity suddenly becomes very succesful. Epic, while producing games for both Sony and Microsoft (and I'm assuming that this guy, even if he isn't involved with Epic, roots for them due to the familial relation), has never really done anything for Nintendo to my knowledge. So there's this paranoia that everything will be Super Mario and Link and that there won't be any room for what Epic does.

What I hinted at in the OP is that the Wii is an additive thing, not subtractive. Wii Sports doesn't replace anything. It adds. Getting the casual gamers involved adds to the gaming world. And like most people he isn't giving enough credit to the "Non minigames" on Wii. Red Steel was a major success (despite how one feels about the game, it IS a single player driven FPS title that sold a million copies). As is Super Paper Mario, a game that, despite its cutesy graphics, is certainly not a minigame title. SSX Blur is a superbly challenging original sports title. Some of the "dreaded" ports have in fact been excellent (others not so much, and that is a problem for Wii right now).

And The Critic nailed it: There are plenty of deep, immersive experiences to be had, now and in the future. Between Halo 3, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Metal Gear 4, etc., I'm not sure where the so called shortage is coming from. If anything, the shortage was in pick up and play titles.

-Rob
[/QUOTE]

I thought I had all these great things to say but you stole them from me and worded them better.  I probably would have stuck a few wise-cracks in there and butchered the whole thing anyway. 

Amen to everything you said there.

[JustLikeHeaven1]

Yea, I'm not really buying what this guy is saying.  There is no shortage of the games that he is talking about.  It sounds like he is just trying to stir up controversy and make his baby bro look better.

I'm sorry but if every game came out and had the look and feel of Gears, I would stop playing games.  You need the whimsical stuff to balance out the more mature stuff.  Super Paper Mario and Rayman Raving Rabbids have there place in the videogame world.

Part of the reason why the 360 will never become as popular as Nintendo was or even Sony is because of its lack of diversity (IMO).  For every Viva Pinata there are 10 shooters or mature titles.  The 360 is fantastic, but they don't hide the fact that they cater to a audience that likes fast cars, big breasts and gallons of blood...aka 13-30 males.  There is nothing wrong with this tactic, but it won't win them any console wars.

A console needs just as many mainstream/casual games as it does mature/complex titles.  If you need proof just look at the best systems ever made and you can see the breadth of titles offered.  People don't always want deep and complex...sometime easy and fun works just as well.  Yet its always best to have the choice...

[Will]

While I can see his point, I don't think he is correct.  These new gamers who are buying and playing the Wii don't love the Wii because it's simple, but because it is accessable and fun for the whole family.  I don't mean kid-friendly, I mean that the whole family, junior up to grandma, can enjoy many of the games for Wii. My grandma kicks by butt all over the place in Wii sports bowling, my father-in-law and I have a serious rivalry going in tennis, and my wife's boss actually came over to play Raving Rabbids.
These same people would be disgusted by Gears of War or Rainbow Six: Vegas, even though I love them.  When you market your game as bloody, borderline horror, you must know you are limiting your demographic.  The fact that the graphics are near photorealistic just enhances the idea that these games are blood-thirsty.  What, are you going to burn Nintendo at the stack for catering to a demographic that you have willfully chosen to ignore?
My hope is that these two extremes can coexist. I hope game companies will make games for the Wii designed around its specific strengthes - some games that are "complex" and some that "simple" but that are all fun and accessable (which is not the same as boring or easy).
Besides, this whole sour grapes attitude toward the Wii kind of belies the fact that these supposedly mature and edgy designers are really not so lofty.

[The RPG Critic]

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]For every Viva Pinata there are 10 shooters or mature titles.[/QUOTE]

You mean 6 historical war shooters, 2 sci-fi shooters, and 2 crime simulation games.

[m0zart1]

I think he has something to worry about, or at least his brother does.  Understand that this isn't about how things HAVE been in the market, it's about where things are going.

For instance, Microsoft recently announced that they are going to target the Wii's market primarily, saying that they don't want to be known as the platform for hardcore gamers, but the all-around family platform, like the Wii.  You can read about that here.

That's what this is really about.  I've said this before -- Microsoft isn't just interested in the gaming market.  They want their platform to become a media hub, where gaming is just one of the many features available.  They went the hardcore gamer route initially because they saw Sony entering that market through the video game route, and because hardcore gamers are some of the best of early adopters for new technology.  However, it's never just been about the hardcore gamer to Microsoft, and they are beginning to see that they have a problem where the early adopting hardcore market might peak for them earlier than they expected.  If they can get a market that was three to four times the size of their XBOX market, then they can push the all-purpose entertainment center aspect of their hardware and live portal much more quickly.  Marketshare can not only give them a ready-made audience for such a new thing, but also the proliferation makes it easier for them to get media content providers to publish their on-demand content on their portal.

That's why Microsoft has went from thinking that Nintendo was moving to a new market that wasn't competing with them to thinking they are a threat to their marketshare, and wanting to best them by competing with them more intelligently.  Heck, take a look at this -- Microsoft is working on a new interface that can work similarly to the Wii's controller, yet still be different enough to avoid claims that they copied Nintendo directly.

Developers that make their bread and butter on becoming primary games on a platform like the 360 don't want to be relegated to second-fiddle, and they certainly don't want to reinvent themselves into a different genre of development.  That's why they are showing their concern, but that doesn't mean we have to share it.

[JustLikeHeaven1]

Just because a company no longer wants to be seen in a certain light doesn't mean they can make it happen.  When I think 360, I think about Halo, Gears of War, Dead Rising, Mass Effect etc... I think about Xbox Live and playing people online... They are known as the console for the *shudders* hardcore gamer. 

Just ask Nintendo how easy it is to not be known as a kiddie console.  They tried so hard with the Gamecube to be a system for everyone and yet everyone felt the system was for kids.  Even though it clearly wasn't. 

Microsoft has an uphill battle in front of them and I personally don't think they stand chance in hell.  If they wanted to be known as this fun for everyone brand they should have marketed their systems that way from the start.  Public perception is not easy to change after 5 or 6 years...

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]Just because a company no longer wants to be seen in a certain light doesn't mean they can make it happen.  When I think 360, I think about Halo, Gears of War, Dead Rising, Mass Effect etc... I think about Xbox Live and playing people online... They are known as the console for the *shudders* hardcore gamer. 

Just ask Nintendo how easy it is to not be known as a kiddie console.  They tried so hard with the Gamecube to be a system for everyone and yet everyone felt the system was for kids.  Even though it clearly wasn't. 

Microsoft has an uphill battle in front of them and I personally don't think they stand chance in hell.  If they wanted to be known as this fun for everyone brand they should have marketed their systems that way from the start.  Public perception is not easy to change after 5 or 6 years...
[/QUOTE]

Microsoft has underestimated the marketplace, which btw is not a hard thing to do.  Nintendo's place as the family friendly console used to be a derision point with them, because the family-friendly market was the stagnant one, and the more involved gamers were the growing interest.  Now, because they've worked primarily not on new upgrades but instead interfaces that simplify gaming and make it much more pick-up-and-play, Nintendo are becoming the champions by expanding the family-friendly market.  Microsoft, just like many of us, had no reason to think that the growth trends would change in the West, or that there was some untapped gaming market.  Now they are seeing that there in fact was, and they want it.

And an untapped market is really what it is.  It isn't just the traditionally family-friendly market that Nintendo always had.  It's the untapped non-gamers and casual gamers and drop-out gamers who have lost interest in the ever-increasing complexity.

Now some people would be happy with a console base of 25%.  Microsoft isn't one of those companies, though.  When they boldly say, as Moore did there, that they want the majority of the market, that's just Microsoft being Microsoft.  It isn't enough for them to do well in a given market and follow standards set by other enterprises, they want to become primary in that market and be the ones who set the standards. They pour money not just into gaming, but into many different fields in order to take as much marketshare away as possible so that they can ultimately have more influence and set the direction, as well as financially dominate. If all they can gain is 25% of the marketshare and they cap out at that, they usually eventually drop out. I think Moore sees this as something they *have* to do if they want to gain the kind of proliferation in the console market they wanted initially. It may be an uphill battle, but in everythign except their PC OS and office tools market, they have become used to that kind of uphill battle.

I still think that Microsoft wants something more out of this than just being a well-known gaming console with a good reputation among deeply involved gamers who have time to play epic games. They want to be something that anybody can pick up, because they realize that's what is selling. And they want it because they don't want their console to remain just a gaming console. I think Microsoft and Sony see (or at least saw) the future of household entertainment as a centralized on-demand media hub, and they both want to be the one setting the standards in that future enterprise. This gaming thing for Microsoft is an investment in the future of entertainment provisioning.

It's ironic that Nintendo, a company that doesn't seem interested in taking that route at all, is making them sit up and notice that maybe the method they took for that kind of marketing wasn't the most likely one to garner some success.  But the reason that concerns Microsoft is that proliferation of their console is essential in order to push it as a centralized entertainment center for the new untested media hub market.  Even if Microsoft were only interested in the gaming market in this foray into console building, they would still be interested in the family-friendly market, because they want proliferation. But I don't think that's what this is really about, or rather, I see subtle differences that don't always occur to most observers. I think they see Nintendo building new market inroads, and they want a piece of that, because that kind of market building is essential to further their own media hub plans. They can term that "family-friendly market", but as I pointed out, this new market Nintendo is gaining is not the family-friendly market that Nintendo always historically had, it's the expanding family-friendly market that Nintendo has been creating.

I think they realize that what has attracted new buyers is accessibility and in some cases, novelty. That's what they want a piece of. They want a piece of that, even if it is only a fad and only for the short term, because they know that marketshare is all important for any other longer-term plans they have built on top of their gaming enterprise. Accessibility helps sell consoles, which helps push games and entertainment to be made or published for said console, and thus ultimately plays right into becoming a much bigger player in a future on-demand entertainment mecca.

Seriously, I don't think Micr osoft has ever wanted to settle for being a console and game providerfor what appears (to them and maybe others) to be becoming a niche market. To take a term out of Nintendo's recent controversial communication, it has never been in their "company DNA" to settle for that kind of second best in the marketplace.  If it continues, I honestly think they'd rather just exit it and find a new way to push the same ultimate plans.

[Steerfoth]

It all depends on what you think a hardcore gamer is. My favorite stereotype is a FRATBOY gamer, and to me that is what he is mourning. FRATBOY gaming is still gowing strong and dominating, so I really hope the Wii can cripple them and run them all off of the buffalo cliff, or at least relagate them to a tiny fragment of the overall market, and watch their chunk of games dwindle.

As for myself, I am becoming less of a franchise gamer, even if they are still quality games, because I have played them to death and they are getting a little stale to me. So I am buying mostly non trad games and enjoy them much, and hope they continue to improve and surprise me. 

We can only hope the Wii destroys some entrenched gaming attitudes, because it is time to open the windows and let a little fresh air in. Down with 'epic' and up with arcade and simplistic.

I am so sick of dark, gritty and violent.  You know, mature.

[andrew]

And all this time I thought hardcore-gamers were people who played games practically non-stop. According to him, hardcore means M rated game playing. Hardcore gamers are the ones who play Pac-Man or river-raid non-stop to gain the high score. Him worrying about a pack-in game, a rental and a budget $10 game with controller is pretty stupid. The Wii is more than these games. Games need to be fun, not over-complex games that need extra fingers to access the the commands. Why not rant about puzzle games ruining gaming because there bought and played like crazy too? Why because it makes no sense. If you don't like the Wii, just don't buy it. Its as simple as that. M rated games just like T or E games will always have their place.

[JustLikeHeaven1]

Mozart, I understand what you are saying about Microsoft...I really do. 

Its just that they haven't done a single thing to correct their "image problems".  You talk about the casual gaming market like Nintendo just recently discovered it...Sony has owned it since the PS1.  The PS1 and PS2 were THE systems for casual gamers.  They had software for everybody.  If you wanted Crash, Spyro, Disney, Barbie, Ratchet, Jak or Kratos it was on those systems.  It had every genre covered and everyone from hardcore to casual gamer were covered.

I will agree with you that Nintendo has found new gamers like females and older people, but those people aren't gonna buy a 360...it costs too much money for a mainstream gamer.  Not to mention that there are almost zero titles that they might be interested in.  The would need to make serious changes to attract those new folks that Nintendo has lured in.

You say that Microsoft wants people to have the choice of epic games as well as pick up and play and it isn't happening.  90% of their arcade, pick up and play games are only available through online stores...not a smart move for attracting the mainstream audience.  Its also something that won't change since Microsoft loves to toot its own horn about Live every chance that it gets.

While it may not have been there intention to only own a "niche market" it is what they are doing at the moment.  Its just that they are finally starting to realize it now.  They don't help themselves very much though.  They take a great license like Shadowrun, which could have been a great action RPG...and they turned it into an online only FPS.  It wouldn't have won them tons of new customers, but it would have offered people something different. 

When I think about the biggest games for the 360 coming out in the next year and half, not a single title is one I would consider casual.  They are all epic, shooters, RPGs and "mature" action games.  GTAIV, Halo 3, Mass Effect, Too Human are all gonna be great games...but mainstream people will be more than happy to buy Super Smash Bros, Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Music, Boogie, EA Playground, My Sims...

Microsoft can keep pouring resources into gaming and all other facets to make the 360 the huge focus of media and entertainment...but they are just going to spread themselves thin.  The masses still don't care about these huge all in one entertainment machines.  Technophiles and people with lots of cash do.  Your average joe would much rather just play some games...and not worry about streaming audio from an MP3 player to a 360 and then send the song to his buddy, who takes it and puts it on his computer to make a video and on and on and on... Sure its cool, but I don't think its gonna win Microsoft anymore fans or customers.

Like I said before, they have an uphill battle.  One that I don't think they will come close to climbing before the end of the 360's life cycle.